from the making-nothing-out-of-nothing dept

This one is just amusing. Scott Cleland, who works for the big broadband companies as a professional propagandist, and has a long history of making absolutely ridiculous claims in order to support their positions, apparently got a bit of traction from the non-thinking press, after he started pushing the message that all of the Democrats who signed a "pledge" to support network neutrality from the group the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) lost in the recent election. So, suddenly, it sounds like a referendum on net neutrality with the people saying they're against it. Verizon was so excited about this that it even Tweeted about it and various folks in the press parroted the claim without really looking into the details. Even CNN wrote an article about it, suggesting this was the "final nail in the coffin for net neutrality."

While I doubt any net neutrality legislation is going to get passed anyway (and, that's a good thing, because after the telcos got done with it, it wouldn't be what you wanted anyway), to suggest in any way that this election was a referendum on net neutrality is pure folly. What the "press" left out is that the PCCC's net neutrality pledge was hardly the only such thing out there. Also, the PCCC pledges were not from existing Representatives, but those trying to get elected to Congress against incumbents -- and nearly every one came from historically Republican districts. In other words, nearly every one of those Democrats who "lost," were guaranteed to lose no matter what. On top of that, Broadband Reports took a look at a couple of other "net neutrality" pledges by folks actually in Congress, and noted that a bunch of Democratic Representatives who signed an anti-Net Neutrality pledge still lost their races, and of those who signed on to a pro-net neutrality list, not a single Democrat on that list lost their re-election bid. So, uh, it sorta suggests that a politician's stance on net neutrality had nothing to do with this election, and if you want to make up fake headlines that don't really mean anything, why would the press not mention any of the relevant facts, and simply parrot the fake story by a guy paid for propaganda?

from the espionage-is-not-war dept

We've been covering all the hyped up claims of cyberwar, often made by law enforcement officials or defense contractors who clearly benefit from keeping people fearful. However, evidence of such claims is always lacking, beyond some vague "trust us, it's bad!" But, all we've seen so far is that people are definitely trying to hack into each other's systems, but that's hardly "war." However, it looks like this hype isn't just happening in the US. A UK official is getting in on the act too, claiming that cyberwar attacks are already happening. But, of course, he's again pretty vague on details. At best he says that the internet has "increased the risk of disruption to infrastructure such as power stations and financial services."

Of course, right before I had read that article, I had been reading an article where the reporter spoke to an energy grid expert, who called such claims "a bunch of hooey." The guy, Seth Blumsack, along with a couple of colleagues, had been hearing all these stories about how "at risk" the electric grid was, so they went looking for the evidence. After looking at the claims and predictions, they realized that those claiming the electrical grid was at risk didn't actually appear to understand the physics of how electric grids actually work.

Blumsack, Hines and Cotilla-Sanchez decided to contrast the performance of a topological model with one based on actual physics - specifically on Ohm's and Kirchoff's Laws governing the flow of electricity in the real world. They tried out both kinds of model on an accurate representation of the North American Eastern Interconnect, the largest and one of the most trouble-prone portions of the US grid, using real-world data from a test case generated in 2005.

The three engineers say that the physics-driven model was much closer to reality, and that this verifies what physics models show. The results showed that in fact it is major grid components through which a lot of power flows - big generating stations and massive transformers - which are the main points of vulnerability, not the minor installations scattered across the country.

It isn't so much that a minor event on a minor line or installation can't crash the network: such things do happen. But in general there have to be huge numbers of such minor events before one of them happens to hit the miracle weak point and bring everything down. It would be an impossible task for terrorists or other malefactors to know in advance just where and when a minor pinprick could cause massive effects.

from the good-work dept

For some time now, we've been pointing out how the new claims of cyberwar threats from politicians and defense contractors was massively overhyped. We keep getting comments on those posts along the lines of "the real threat is secret, so you have to trust the government," which isn't exactly comforting. Sometimes we get comments saying "you're not a security expert, so you don't know the real threat." At which point we ask people to explain the real threat and they always come up short. With military leaders getting together to once again hype the still unexplained "cyberwar threat" security expert Bruce Schneier has written a great piece detailing the lack of an actual threat.

He points out, correctly, that cybersecurity is important, but elevating it to a bogus "war" is dangerous:

We surely need to improve our cybersecurity. But words have meaning, and metaphors matter. There's a power struggle going on for control of our nation's cybersecurity strategy, and the NSA and DoD are winning. If we frame the debate in terms of war, if we accept the military's expansive cyberspace definition of "war," we feed our fears.

We reinforce the notion that we're helpless -- what person or organization can defend itself in a war? -- and others need to protect us. We invite the military to take over security, and to ignore the limits on power that often get jettisoned during wartime.

Instead, he notes, almost all of the known "examples" of cyberwar are either cybercrime or espionage -- which are not the same thing. As he points out:

If, on the other hand, we use the more measured language of cybercrime, we change the debate. Crime fighting requires both resolve and resources, but it's done within the context of normal life. We willingly give our police extraordinary powers of investigation and arrest, but we temper these powers with a judicial system and legal protections for citizens.

This is an important point. No one is saying that online security isn't important. We're just questioning whether it's really a "war" that requires the military to be heavily involved or if there are better options. It's great to see some in the security field start to speak up on this subject as well.

from the credibility? dept

As the anonymous person who submitted this story noted, this appears to be a respectable Australian news publication, presenting a list of totally made up "texting disorders" put together by a "technology researcher" as if they were real and serious issues. The list is almost comical:

Textaphrenia: thinking you've heard or felt a new text message vibration when there is no message.

Textiety: a feeling of anxiety from not receiving or sending any text messages.

Post-traumatic text disorder: injuries related to texting, such as walking into objects by not paying attention to your surroundings.

from the virus-infected? dept

About a decade ago, if you followed the technology space, you might recall a series of articles about a professor at the University of Reading, named Kevin Warwick, who made himself famous by implanting a computer chip in his arm, declaring himself an expert in "cybernetics" and figuring out ways to get way too much press for nothing special. The Register, amusingly, dubbed him "Captain Cyborg" and regularly mocked his various exploits. We haven't heard much about Warwick in a while, but when I saw a bunch of folks chatting about a BBC article concerning the "first human infected with computer virus," I was immediately reminded of Warwick. Reading through the article, it was no surprise to find out that this "experiment" is actually being conducted by a colleague of Warwick's, Mark Gasson -- who according to Warwick's own bio lead the research group that Warwick works in.

The story is -- as with all captain cyborg stories -- a lot less than the headline suggests. Gasson wasn't "infected with a computer virus." He took a chip that had a computer virus and stuck it in his arm, just like Warwick has done n the past. The parallels to an actual virus are minimal, and the usefulness for anything is even less than that. Gasson presents this as useful for considering the implications for implanted technology such as pacemakers, but that's nothing new. People have talked about potential technology issues from the wireless interface to pacemakers for years. Doing some sort of publicity stunt with an implanted computer chip doesn't further that discussion along.

from the yup,-that-patent-system-functions-just-great dept

TechCrunch points us to a story about an Israeli company by the name of Netex who is claiming a patent over "www.addressing." What's that? Well, apparently it's the process of simply adding a ".com" to the end of a word you put in a browser address bar. There are all sorts of questions raised by this, and the reporting at the Israeli site Ynetnews leaves a lot to be desired. First, neither Ynetnews nor TechCrunch point to the actual patent. I've been searching on both the supposed inventor's name (Aviv Refuah) and his company's name and I can't find it. If anyone out there can find the actual patent, please post a link in the comments.

The next problem with the article is the claim that this patent is "worth millions" and that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo "will have to pay royalties." It remains to be seen if that's true (and given what's stated, it seems quite doubtful).

Next problem? The article claims that this patent is about the address bar in the browser -- not a search engine box -- though, the reporter doesn't seem to understand the difference between the two. Admittedly, Google now offers a browser in Chrome, but the article keeps referring to the patent as a "search option." Yahoo doesn't offer a browser.

Then there's the issue of claiming that Google and Yahoo "use" this technology:

Refuah says various internet giants such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo have been using the program for years, and now they will have to pay royalties to Netex.

That implies -- falsely -- that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have somehow been using some technology that they got from Netex. It's a common trick used in reporting about patents, but its highly misleading. Much, much, much more likely is that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo simply added a useful and obvious feature, that Netex is now showing up and claiming ownership years later.

Finally, it's tough to say much about the actual patent claims in question -- seeing as we haven't seen them -- but from the Ynetnews description, it's difficult to see how such a thing could possibly be considered patentable (and one would think that Netscape would have some prior art, though I can't remember exactly when Netscape added the ability to add .com to the end of something put in the browser bar). But, honestly, can anyone with a straight face explain why such a thing should be patentable?

from the oh,-please... dept

What is it with these bizarre exaggerated claims about the "harms" associated with modern social networking tools? There was just a totally exaggerated report claiming that social networking was harmful to your health, but when you looked at the details, it didn't actually say that at all. The latest, is the claim that new research says that Twitter can make you "immoral." Really? Well, if you actually read the details that doesn't seem to be what the report says at all. Instead, it seems to note that if you only interact with people through short bursts of information, it may take you longer to recognize the emotional impact of what's being said because it's harder to spend the time to reflect. It's difficult to see how that finding is really all that new or surprising. But it says nothing about Twitter somehow turning moral people into immoral people, as the original story suggests.

from the maybe-it-needs-a-bailout-too dept

While online scams and cybercrime are growing, the claim made recently that cybercrime is a trillion-dollar business simply isn't true, says The Register. As Gary Stiennon points out, if it were, it would be bigger than global IT business itself, as well as the GDP of several industrialized nations. AT&T's chief security officer threw out the figure in front of a Senate committee; he also said that cybercrime was a bigger business than the global drug trade, another claim Stiennon disputes. He dug into where the myth was started, and how it's evolved, and traced it back to a single comment made by a consultant to the US Treasury Department in 2005. It's then been so commonly cited -- often by security companies looking to advance their own agendas -- and repeated that it's become widely accepted. Certainly cybercrime is a problem, and a growing one, but overstating its true impact won't make fighting it any easier.

from the round-two dept

Back in 2005, we marveled at the success that Skype backers had in talking up the price of the company, eventually suckering convincing eBay to put together a $4 billion deal for it. This was what we dubbed the "Skype Billion-Dollar Buyout Plan" in which companies used press hype to create valuations far above their actual worth (see YouTube and Facebook for a couple of examples). Of course, what eBay was never really clear on was how it planned to make money from Skype, and it later went back and forth on whether it had given up on looking for the mythical "synergies" between Skype and its core auction business. Last week, eBay's CEO conceded that those synergies were "minimal" -- leading to more speculation that eBay might spin Skype off.

And thus the cycle begins again, with a figure of $900 million to $1.2 billion tossed out there as a potential starting point for the second version of the Skype Billion-Dollar Buyout Plan. What's interesting is that just like four years ago, Skype's financials are murky, as Om Malik points out. The company also still faces the same big problem: monetization. As Skype gets bigger, that problem could become even more difficult. After all, if Skype continues to garner more and more users, more and more calls will shift from the paid SkypeOut service to free Skype-to-Skype calls. Skype is said to be profitable (although there's no indication of how profitable), but it seems pretty clear that it hasn't been the runaway success that would have justified its $4 billion price tag. While it's possible that any current sale could carry a more realistic price, somehow we imagine that eBay will try to use the same tactic that drove up its price for Skype to drive up the next buyer's price.

from the when-reality-isn't-as-interesting-as-your-headline dept

"Wife murdered for Facebook status," screams the headline on the BBC News site. "A man murdered his estranged wife after becoming 'enraged' when she changed her marital status on Facebook to 'single'," it goes on to say, after a man in England was convicted of killing his estranged wife who wouldn't respond to any of his attempts to contact her. Apparently changing the Facebook status was the final straw, but to say she was murdered because of it seems like little more than an overly ambitious attempt to craft a really juicy headline. This woman was murdered because her estranged husband went nuts; Facebook was hardly an accessory. While this may not seem like a huge deal, it's these sorts of stories that spring politicians into action against technology, blaming it for society's ills while ignoring the real underlying problems. I mean, if people are getting killed for their Facebook status, surely we need to ban Facebook statuses, right? To protect the children?